no-mistakes(document): Update 5→6 node references and fix CT ID contradictions
PR Pipeline — Authorize → Validate → Review → Merge / auth (pull_request) Successful in 2s
PR Pipeline — Authorize → Validate → Review → Merge / validate (pull_request) Successful in 2s
PR Pipeline — Authorize → Validate → Review → Merge / lint (pull_request) Successful in 3s
PR Pipeline — Authorize → Validate → Review → Merge / ai-review (pull_request) Successful in 3s
PR Pipeline — Authorize → Validate → Review → Merge / gate (pull_request) Successful in 0s
PR Pipeline — Authorize → Validate → Review → Merge / auth (pull_request) Successful in 2s
PR Pipeline — Authorize → Validate → Review → Merge / validate (pull_request) Successful in 2s
PR Pipeline — Authorize → Validate → Review → Merge / lint (pull_request) Successful in 3s
PR Pipeline — Authorize → Validate → Review → Merge / ai-review (pull_request) Successful in 3s
PR Pipeline — Authorize → Validate → Review → Merge / gate (pull_request) Successful in 0s
This commit is contained in:
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Workers execute tasks on whatever infrastructure they're given — SSH to .6,
|
||||
## Why This Matters
|
||||
|
||||
Without enforced delegation, the manager consumes the full iteration budget
|
||||
(60 calls) on single-turn tasks — SSH to 5 nodes, check each VM, read logs —
|
||||
(60 calls) on single-turn tasks — SSH to 6 nodes, check each VM, read logs —
|
||||
leaving no capacity for actual coordination. The result: context overflow
|
||||
(59K tokens in system prompt), iteration exhaustion, and degraded response
|
||||
quality. This contract exists because I blew through my budget checking
|
||||
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ it asks the manager (via relay) — it doesn't go find it on its own.
|
||||
|
||||
**This is a hard rule, not a recommendation.** Violating it produces the exact
|
||||
type of discrepancy the kanban pipeline exists to prevent: a review worker finds
|
||||
"5 nodes present" in the raw data but "5/5 online" in the report — even though
|
||||
"6 nodes present" in the raw data but "6/6 online" in the report — even though
|
||||
one of those nodes was unreachable. The report lied because it used data the
|
||||
raw data never provided.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ delegate_task(
|
||||
```
|
||||
delegate_task(
|
||||
tasks=[
|
||||
{"goal": "Check all 5 Proxmox nodes for VM status", "context": "SSH to each node via 192.168.68.x, run 'qm list'"},
|
||||
{"goal": "Check all 6 Proxmox nodes for VM status", "context": "SSH to each node via 192.168.68.x, run 'qm list'"},
|
||||
{"goal": "Check Docker container health on .7/.116/.17", "context": "SSH to each host, check container status"},
|
||||
]
|
||||
)
|
||||
@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ Only verified results reach Kwame. Format per channel:
|
||||
{
|
||||
"lane_id": "devops-check",
|
||||
"worker": "syslog-devops",
|
||||
"goal": "Check all 5 Proxmox nodes",
|
||||
"goal": "Check all 6 Proxmox nodes",
|
||||
"status": "dispatched|completed|failed",
|
||||
"output_file": "/tmp/node-report.md"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user